Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

Originally posted by butcherguy
I don't contend that arc welders and oxyacetylene torches create PAINT CHIPS.

They aren't paint. NIST even tells you the paint on the WTC columns had an ignition temperature of 800 C. They used this FACT to determine to what temperature certain columns had been heated.

Again, lower ignition temperature, greater energy release, not the same chemical composition, and simultaneously a source of the tiny iron spheres.

All of those things show -- NOT PAINT.

One of us is dead wrong, there are no two ways about that. I have told you clearly why this stuff was not paint. Your response did nothing to refute this information that I post, as to why they don't match. Instead you brought up hologram planes, a straw-man and complete logical fallacy.

You have failed.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
It doesn't match paint in any physical way at all

I'm not saying it IS paint, it could be something else, but you are completely incorrect here. Jones notes the presence of Zn and Cr in the red layers. These are present in metal primer paints. Jones also describes "plate-like particals" which have a very strong resemblance to Kaolinite (paint component). They have the same crystalline morphology and grouping, and also the same EDS signature. Jones further claims the chips are "contaminated with gypsum" yet this material is also used in the manufacture of paint.

See also.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/5ad9fb313b95c19b.jpg[/atsimg]

First of all. There is no "conventional definition" of thermite, something is either thermite or it isn't.

So first, to prop up the rest of your argument, you're trying to spin thermite as something that has no variety to it. Something either "is" or "isn't" thermite as you say.

Another failure of logic. There are many, many varieties of metal, but they are all basically classed as a metal. There are diverse varities of thermite but they are all thermite. Jones claims the chips are a type of thermite. Secondly, we know from thermitic reactions that they CANNOT be extinguished like you could with, say, combustion. The only way to stop thermite is to seperate the reacting components. Please tell me how you can seperate nano particles that are bound together in dual layer chips. Please tell me how, during the intense temperature and speed of the reaction, you can seperate the particals so that the reaction is partial. Divine intervention perhaps?

The rest of your post is based on the idea that I am incorrect about this being an inarguable characterisitc of all thermites. However, as I am not in error the rest of your post is irrelevant.

How the hell would you know?

It is extremely basic science and logic that you are attempting to distort here. Reactions do not just stop of their own accord if the conditions for reaction are being met. There was no way the conditions weren't being met, unless, you would like to explain how the nanoparticles in the dual layer chips were seperated at godlike speed and precision to extinguish the thermitic reaction before it was complete.

Understand this: the chips are NOT thermitic.

I never thought I would hear something more fantastical than the no-plane theory, but I just have. I could get more sense out of talking to a small child.

Originally posted by SteveR
I'm not saying it IS paint, it could be something else, but you are completely incorrect here. Jones notes the presence of Zn and Cr in the red layers.

There are also zinc and chromium, and iron and oxygen for that matter, in the human body. But to say the chips come from a human body is to ignore all the information that contradicts it.

Similarly, you are ignoring the evidence that suggests these chips are not paint. The ignition temperature, the energy output, and other aspects of the chemical composition.

NIST was so certain that the paint on the columns didn't ignite until 800 C, that they based their analysis of column heating on this principle. That is what your picture above is from. The chips do NOT exhibit the same properties.

First of all. There is no "conventional definition" of thermite, something is either thermite or it isn't.

So first, to prop up the rest of your argument, you're trying to spin thermite as something that has no variety to it. Something either "is" or "isn't" thermite as you say.

Another failure of logic. There are many, many varieties of metal, but they are all basically classed as a metal.

You're right, this is another failure of logic.

Thermite is a chemical mixture. Not a metal.

There are diverse varities of thermite but they are all thermite.

And they are all thermite but they have many diverse properties.

And the only thing you have going for your assertion that you know how ALL of them behave, even what the DoD has researched for military applications, is pure arrogance and nonsense.

Please tell me how you can seperate nano particles that are bound together in dual layer chips.

There would be no need if additives were used in the structure as a thermal barrier, as even one hypothetical example. You're not an expert here, and I have no reason to believe this would be impossible, and your questions do nothing to demonstrate it would not be possible. I have already told you, you sweeping assertions are based on nothing but presumption and the arrogance to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Did you work with nano-energetics in DoD labs? Plasticizers are added to even conventional explosives to raise their ignition temperature and decrease their sensitivity. The idea of additives to change these kinds of chemical properties is not new, it's standard.

The rest of your post is based on the idea that I am incorrect about this being an inarguable characterisitc of all thermites. However, as I am not in error the rest of your post is irrelevant.

You are not in error, based on what? I ask again, did you work for the DoD? From what does your universal knowledge of thermite come? YouTube? Google? Give me a break. I might as well start telling you that I know all forms of thermite too, and it IS possible, and YOU'RE wrong. I would have just as much evidence for saying THAT as you do to say it's impossible. It speaks a lot to your character when you can't even admit it when you have no way of knowing something.

I could get more sense out of talking to a small child.

Then maybe it would be more appropriate for you to socialize with them, instead of adults.

I understand that many children also have no conception of scientific proof.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

There are also zinc and chromium, and iron and oxygen for that matter, in the human body. But to say the chips come from a human body is to ignore all the information that contradicts it.

How would you propose to prove that the elements that you mention did not come from a human body. There were bodies in the rubble I do believe.
Who collected the sample? What was the source of those UNIDENTIFIED chips? Street sweepings? What was the chain of custody? What did those chips look like a week before 911?

Originally posted by butcherguy

There are also zinc and chromium, and iron and oxygen for that matter, in the human body. But to say the chips come from a human body is to ignore all the information that contradicts it.

How would you propose to prove that the elements that you mention did not come from a human body. There were bodies in the rubble I do believe.

Damn, I guess I should have used a more ridiculous example. I should have known you would take it seriously just to keep bickering with me.


How about that, SteveR? Now one of your fellow "debunkers" is suggesting the small dual-layered chips came from burning bodies. And two more of you "debunkers" thought it was worth starring, LMAO. I guess anything is possible for you guys --- except the obvious.

I don't know, "butcher," how about it? Sounds like you may be onto something here. What are they then, skin with dried blood attached to the other side?


And with a theory that gruesome, no one would ever dare test it. Pure genius.

Disgusting. And incomprehensibly ignorant.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That's an enormous amount of hot air for someone who is basically saying

"they could have altered the thermite to make it less effective".

I'm having trouble understanding how increasing the total energy release per gram, for example by making the particle sizes smaller, is making anything about thermite "less effective."

Then again most of the things you say here make no sense, so I guess it's really little wonder.

The increase in the total energy released is small when particle size is reduced to nanometer dimensions and has to do with enhanced mass transfer. Both approach the theoretical maximum.
The self- extingushing nature of the chips does not argue for a "highly engineered" demolition material. This "lowly engineered," less effective material may explain why 3 to 10 tons of it, unburned, was estimated to be in the dust. Then again maybe it was just paint.

[edit on 8/23/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Similarly, you are ignoring the evidence that suggests these chips are not paint. The ignition temperature, the energy output, and other aspects of the chemical composition.

You repeat this as if it is somehow valid to the discussion. The only relevant issue is the assertion that the chips are thermite. That assertion is what we are here to debate. You can't prove the chips are thermite by arguing that they are not paint. 'Not paint' does not equal 'thermite'.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
NIST was so certain that the paint on the columns didn't ignite until 800 C

You truthers spend your whole time lambasting NIST, but when it suits you, you cite them to support your claims? Seriously?

There is just as much, if not more, evidence for paint than not. Remember Jones himself suggested paint on thermite at one point. We will agree to disagree on this.

Thermite is a chemical mixture. Not a metal.

Very good. Glad to see you taking it one step at a time.

There would be no need if additives were used in the structure as a thermal barrier, as even one hypothetical example.

Absurd hypotheticals are all you can offer. More desperate fantastical claims. You are actually trying to posit that super advanced military nanothermite contains a 'thermal barrier' that snuffs itself out before it has finished. How can demolition materials that go out be relied upon to bring down one of the biggest steel structures ever made?

Do you have any more hypotheticals? Or are you going to continue to claim that 'thermal barriers' can reverse nanothermite reactions?

Plasticizers are added to even conventional explosives to raise their ignition temperature and decrease their sensitivity.

Before detonation. It is irrelevant. Unless you know of any that can reverse the combustion of explosive material?

it IS possible, and YOU'RE wrong.

I am not wrong. For me to be wrong, nanothermite has to snuff itself out. Instantly. For no reason. Just not happening.

Why don't you ask Jones to run the DSC experiments under inert gas? That would help your case far more than proposing self-extinguishing nano thermites. If such a material were even scientifically possible, it would be about as useful for demolishing structures as wet tinder.

Some folks here have the smarts to realize Jones deliberately avoided doing the required experiments to identify thermitic material. Worth thinking about. You've been a loyal cheerleader for him but on the other hand you may just be an unwitting tool.

Now one of your fellow "debunkers" is suggesting the small dual-layered chips came from burning bodies.

Abysmal reading comprehension. You are misquoting and being disrespectful to the subject and facetious. Remember that Jones found organic material in the chips but did not analyze.

Originally posted by pteridine

The self- extingushing nature of the chips does not argue for a "highly engineered" demolition material.

Perhaps these fragments were ejected before ignition due to high pressure
gasses, and therefore could not begin their reaction process.

Something to think about going into our debate. I have contacted two
moderators to setup our thread.

Hopefully just a matter of hours, maybe a couple of days before we begin.

Originally posted by SteveR
Why don't you ask Jones to run the DSC experiments under inert gas?

I actually did this last year at some point via direct e-mail contact and
received his reply.

Once you understand why the presence of oxygen has no significance
on the conclusion, you will learn to stop making this statement.

I'll be sure to post a link to the debate so that you and others can follow along.

Originally posted by SteveR
You repeat this as if it is somehow valid to the discussion. The only relevant issue is the assertion that the chips are thermite. That assertion is what we are here to debate. You can't prove the chips are thermite by arguing that they are not paint. 'Not paint' does not equal 'thermite'.

I don't care what you call it, because its behavior is documented and it hasn't been found to be anything else. If it was military material, we would have no way of proving it anyway because we would have no samples to compare it to.

But if you ever feel like claiming that it IS paint, or human remains as "butcher" here seems to entertain, I'll still be here to talk about it.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
NIST was so certain that the paint on the columns didn't ignite until 800 C

You truthers spend your whole time lambasting NIST, but when it suits you, you cite them to support your claims? Seriously?

Using the opponents' own sources of information against them is a well accepted form of debate. If you don't support the official government reports either then that is fine with me.

The fact remains that NIST used the paint to test the heating of the columns. On this they can be taken at their word because they found no evidence of severe heating, and they intentionally tried to select the columns that were closest to the fires. So if they were lying they certainly didn't do themselves any favor. The picture you post above even shows paint peeled at 650 C according to NIST. That's way beyond the combustion temperature of the chips. So your image debunks itself.

There is just as much, if not more, evidence for paint than not.

That's a pretty important "if" you include there, putting aside the fact that the entire statement is erroneous. It's too bad you can't even seem to make up your mind, because I realize how you could cream if you were actually able to prove to me it was actually paint or human remains or anything else besides thermite for that matter. You know, so you could rub it in my face and be the big man hero of the day. Doesn't it ever make you stop and think, when you AREN'T able to prove a damned thing about it, and there are more questions about the substance than answers? Gives you no pause at all? I suppose your answer will be a rant equivalent to "no," or else some smart-aleck non-answer. Try and prove me wrong. Some geniuses we have studying 9/11 for no one to be able to positively identify this material.

Thermite is a chemical mixture. Not a metal.

Very good. Glad to see you taking it one step at a time.

You're welcome.

There would be no need if additives were used in the structure as a thermal barrier, as even one hypothetical example.

Absurd hypotheticals are all you can offer.

Call it absurd if you want. I don't have to offer you a damned thing because it's not my responsibility to prove it was thermite. It's still not paint. I can tell you that much myself, whether it's my responsibility or not (it's still not). It doesn't match paint. It doesn't ignite at the temperature the paint ignited. It combusts with more energy. It matches no known compositions of paint.

You are actually trying to posit that super advanced military nanothermite contains a 'thermal barrier' that snuffs itself out before it has finished.

And you're trying to posit that you actually know the properties of every single form of thermite in existence, including military grades of it researched by the DoD. Which is pathetically arrogant and truly absurd.

Whether or not the DoD researched this stuff is established. I have the pdfs that prove they have been studying nano-thermite for years, and they even explain in it why reducing particle sizes makes such a big difference, for anyone who is chemically challenged. You would be lying if you told me you knew how all of these worked intimately, because it's not public information. The only thing that IS public about this, is that they have been interested in it and carried out research there for the purpose of weaponizing it.

How can demolition materials that go out be relied upon to bring down one of the biggest steel structures ever made?

You don't know what I think brought those towers down. I know you don't because not even I do.

This question only becomes relevant when you can show me my quote, claiming that thermite brought down the Twin Towers. Go ahead and dig through all my posts. Happy hunting bucko.

Do you have any more hypotheticals?

Ohh man I know you would love if it I did. You "debunkers" thrive off of baiting people to wildly speculate and then ranting off your vitriol like you're the great James Randi himself (minus the pedophilia). Sorry but you're gonna have to get those jollies off on someone more unsuspecting. I have no interest peddling to your ego games.

I notice you didn't have any comment for your buddy "butcher" there who wanted to insinuate that the chips came from human remains. Let me guess, you were one of the people who starred that post?

For me to be wrong, nanothermite has to snuff itself out. Instantly. For no reason. Just not happening.

Well this stuff did apparently "snuff itself out" and you haven't proven it to be anything else.

No one said "for no reason." You're making stuff up for dramatic effect. You don't even know what the stuff is or what it was used for in the towers. I'm content waiting for more study. You just want me to speculate now so you can play immature games and throw weak insults.

Why don't you ask Jones to run the DSC experiments under inert gas?

Because I hate to break this mind-blowing information to you, but oxygen was also present at the WTC. I already told you I don't give a damn what you call this crap. It's behaviors are documented fact.

You've been a loyal cheerleader for him but on the other hand you may just be an unwitting tool.

I was here before he was. You calling me an unwitting tool is like a murderer calling me a sinner, imho.

You are misquoting

"Butcher" just asked me how I knew the chips weren't human remains. Are you the only person unable to read that above?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by pteridine

The self- extingushing nature of the chips does not argue for a "highly engineered" demolition material.

Wrong again, this is your opinion. Care to show hundreds of scientist that agree with your opinions? I didn’t think so.

This "lowly engineered

Lowly engineered?

We have been over this repeatedly, yet you continue to twist Jones report. Your opinions have been proven wrong.

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even [color=gold]explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “[color=gold]super-thermite” [20, 22].

www.bentham.org...

This "lowly engineered," less effective material may explain why 3 to 10 tons of it, unburned, was estimated to be in the dust. Then again [color=gold]maybe it was just paint.

“Maybe” it was anything, but paint.






[edit on 24-8-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Well this stuff did apparently "snuff itself out" and you haven't proven it to be anything else.

In a forum often weighed down by absurd reasoning this really stands out. Well done.

You can't prove that I'm not the President of the USA. Granted, I'm not black, but since that's the only thing you know about me it's not reasonable to assume that I'm not the President.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


The presence of oxygen does not impede the thermite reaction but to prove thermite was present, the first test that must be run is reaction in the absence of air. Thermite does not need air and combustion of binder does. The energy output says that some, or all, of the heat evolved is from combustion in air. Jones experiment failed to show thermite because he cannot differentiate between heat sources.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Well this stuff did apparently "snuff itself out" and you haven't proven it to be anything else.

In a forum often weighed down by absurd reasoning this really stands out.

So you're saying you can prove it to be paint or some other known substance? Have at it big boy.

I've already seen plenty enough that you can't tell the difference between absurdity and reason to begin with.

Hell, if I asked you to prove the official story, you'd probably come out with some cheap line about how you have no reason to doubt it so you have no need to. That's the same thing, Mr. Sagan, except the difference is you'd actually think it positively proves something. Which it wouldn't.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

So you're saying you can prove it to be paint or some other known substance? Have at it big boy.

I've already seen plenty enough that you can't tell the difference between absurdity and reason to begin with.

Hell, if I asked you to prove the official story, you'd probably come out with some cheap line about how you have no reason to doubt it so you have no need to. That's the same thing, Mr. Sagan, except the difference is you'd actually think it positively proves something. Which it wouldn't.

The quote by you that I posted suggests that since it hasn't been proved to your satisfaction that it isn't paint, and although it displays characteristics which are almost certainly not those of thermite, you are going to continue to think that it's thermite.

That's absolutely your right. But it kind of implies you have already made up your mind and are desperate to believe Jones.

As for proving it's paint - why bother? There's a million things it could be, one of which is thermite. But since it doesn't behave like thermite those of us with, shall we say, a bit less invested in this than yourself have drawn the obvious conclusion.

And hell, if you darn tootin asked me to prove the official story I'd tell you there ain't really one, and besides, I don't dang well believe much that the government say. They's varmints.

Originally posted by turbofan
Once you understand why the presence of oxygen has no significance
on the conclusion, you will learn to stop making this statement.

The absence of oxygen rules out simple combustion. Jones avoided doing the required experiments to identify thermitic material. Would love to hear his excuse. Make sure you post his reply in the debate.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I don't have to offer you a damned thing because it's not my responsibility to prove it was thermite. It's still not paint.

Speechless... the assertion is that the chips are thermitic material. The burden of proof is on Jones for making the assertion and his supporters. I can dispute the assertion without having to prove what the chips are.

How can demolition materials that go out be relied upon to bring down one of the biggest steel structures ever made?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You don't know what I think brought those towers down. I know you don't because not even I do. This question only becomes relevant when you can show me my quote, claiming that thermite brought down the Twin Towers.

I didn't ask why you thought that. I asked you if self-extinguishing demolitions (an absurdity by definiton) could be relied upon to bring down the towers. Consider it a rhetorical question then, the point has been made over and over and is unchallenged.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You "debunkers" thrive off of baiting people to wildly speculate and then ranting off your vitriol like you're the great James Randi himself

It is an assertion you stand by (chips are thermitic). The burden of proof is on you and anyone supporting the assertion. Wild speculations are all am I able to get out of you to support the claim. I stand for truth, you, however, stand for a red herring and a diversion of the 'truth movement'.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I notice you didn't have any comment for your buddy "butcher" there who wanted to insinuate that the chips came from human remains.

I agree with butcher that the organic material which went unanalyzed by Jones could indeed be from organic sources including victims, food, and so on. Nobody said "the chips came from human remains" and you know it. Nice little attempt at distortion, though.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
No one said "for no reason." You're making stuff up for dramatic effect.

No, dude, I am not "making stuff up". The conditions for thermitic reaction were being met. We know this because it began (Jones claims thermitic reaction). It then snuffed itself out (partially reacted chips). For the reaction to begin, the conditions for reaction need to be met (they were), for the reaction to reverse before it is complete the reacting ingredients have to be separated. Since this did not occur and the reaction was not interfered with (which would be impossible to do anyhow) it did indeed reverse "for no reason."

This is because the reaction was not thermitic but was simple combustion in air that went out.

Why don't you ask Jones to run the DSC experiments under inert gas?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Because I hate to break this mind-blowing information to you, but oxygen was also present at the WTC.

Irrelevant. Jones was conducting chemical analysis. He needs to run DSC under inert gas to distinguish between simple combustion and something more suspicious.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
"Butcher" just asked me how I knew the chips weren't human remains.

You keep persisting with this intentional distortion. I thought you were for "truth" not misrepresenting people. Butcher said "How would you propose to prove that the elements that you mention did not come from a human body". The elements, not the chips. Huge difference. The chips have an inconsistent composition and are contaminated with all sorts of materials, gypsum, organic fractions, etc. Contamination is something Jones admits in his paper. Consequently one should also expect a different profile to isolated primer paint.

With this level of misrepresentation, wild speculation, and refusing the burden of proof for supporting the assertion of "thermitic material", you are damaging your case. It would stand better if you were silent.

Originally posted by SteveR
The absence of oxygen rules out simple combustion.

So does the production of iron spheres.

Speechless... the assertion is that the chips are thermitic material. The burden of proof is on Jones for making the assertion and his supporters. I can dispute the assertion without having to prove what the chips are.

The burden of proof that they are thermite is indeed on Jones, I agree with that much. I agree with much of what he says but despite immature insinuations I don't worship the man. And as a free thinker I don't see you or 'shady trick' or any other ATS member as an arbiter of this subject, and you certainly haven't refuted Jones' theory.

I asked you if self-extinguishing demolitions (an absurdity by definiton) could be relied upon to bring down the towers.

Right, and are you still beating your wife?

Since I never claimed this material was what destroyed the towers, you are asking me a loaded question.

Loaded question is an informal fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that:

1. presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved (a complex question) and
2. contains controversial assertions and/or loaded language.

This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[1] An example of this is the question "Do you still beat your wife/husband?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he or she will admit to having a spouse, and having beaten them at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

In case you're wondering, the presupposition is that the theoretically unreacted material brought down the towers. Once more, I never claimed that it did. Only if you agree to stop beating your wife I will answer this question. Deal?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You "debunkers" thrive off of baiting people to wildly speculate and then ranting off your vitriol like you're the great James Randi himself

It is an assertion you stand by (chips are thermitic). The burden of proof is on you and anyone supporting the assertion.

Can you show me where I said the chips are thermite? Find the quote.

I have said at least twice on this thread I don't care what you call the stuff. Its behaviors are documented. It doesn't match paint, and hasn't been matched to any other known substance yet. That's my stance.

Wild speculations are all am I able to get out of you to support the claim.

Considering I am not even making that claim your confusion is obvious. Re-read the text immediately above if you have to. The wild speculation is what you want me to resort to, in lieu of the material not being comparatively identified.

I stand for truth, you, however, stand for a red herring and a diversion of the 'truth movement'.

If you really stood for truth you would also be taking issue with the official reports.

"Official story?" I can hear a kid in his parents' basement already. "There is no such thing as the "official story"!"

Oh really?

official
–adjective
2. of or pertaining to an office or position of duty, trust, or authority: official powers.
3. authorized or issued authoritatively: an official report.

dictionary.reference.com...

NIST report: An official federal agency. It's role in the "investigation" was allotted by the US Congress.

FEMA: Another official federal agency. Quickly assumed the ASCE's investigation in early months after the attacks, which reported to the US Congress.

Kean Commission: An official federal commission set up by US Congress.

All of these investigations were on behalf of the US Federal Government. That is the "official story." I hope I don't have to pull out the definition of "story" too.

Even most ATS "debunkers" agree NIST and the other federal investigations had serious issues. NIST did not release various data, allow their work to be peer-reviewed, release model parameters, and their data often also failed to justify their hypothesis, which they never claimed was indisputable proof of anything anyway. FEMA wasn't a complete investigation in the first place, and neither was the Kean Commission which neglected technical issues at the WTC entirely and read like a novel.

If you were really interested in the truth, REALLY interested, you would NOT come onto these forums to waste your time arguing with people like me. You would JOIN people like me in confronting confused people like yourself who think these official investigations were case closed. They weren't. You should at least know THAT much by now. I am not going to do a better investigation for you. Not unless you want to give me a few million dollars, subpoena power, and access to whatever evidence I desire to see. And good luck getting anyone that kind of access outside of the feds' exclusive circles. You can take their defense too if you want to accept their burden but you already know it would be an uphill battle defending that garbage.

I notice you didn't have any comment for your buddy "butcher" there who wanted to insinuate that the chips came from human remains.

I agree with butcher that the organic material which went unanalyzed by Jones could indeed be from organic sources including victims, food, and so on. Nobody said "the chips came from human remains" and you know it. Nice little attempt at distortion, though.

And what evidence do you have that the material in the chips comes from human remains or food?

You want to talk about wild speculation? It's good for you that I don't get as much enjoyment out of being brutally vitriolic or I could go on a nice long, hateful rant about the hypocrisy and scientific ignorance of suggesting parts of these chips could come from human bodies and no one has noticed the chemical indications of such a thing yet, when these samples have been under such scrutiny already. This dust came off the tops of buildings, off of bridges, various little nooks and crannies, NOT the magical debris pile that has been the abused canard of virtually every anomaly that planes, fires, and the simple mechanical action of crushing can't explain. So I would really like to hear what you think could have came from human bodies in these chips and how exactly you think it could have happened, given all of this information and the chemicals present (and lacking) in the chips that disagree with the idea that it was formed (even partially) from human remains. Because it would have had to have happened before or during the collapse to be in the dust where it was.

You want me to speculate, so, unless you agree we have no business doing it at all, you should have no problem speculating how human remains could comprise these chips.

No one said "for no reason." You're making stuff up for dramatic effect.

No, dude, I am not "making stuff up".

Yes, dude, you are. You don't even have to mention what occurred chemically because "for no reason" insinuates the "self-snuffing" couldn't possibly have had a useful function in the demolition of the towers (ie "no reason" for it to happen). This assumes you would know how the towers would have to be demolished. Is that something else you'd like to speculate about for me? How the towers would HAVE to be demolished? Because I would love to see how you could determine that to a single option as well. Put short you are talking out of your rear and the last thing you are going to do is admit it. I'm not even claiming this stuff DID bring down the towers, for the 3rd or 4th time!! Yet you're not only assuming that's what I'm saying, but assuming on top of that, that you would know how exactly how they would do it and know for a fact that self-snuffing would be a totally useless feature. Based on what evidence? NOTHING.

You have gone off on such a tangent that not only are you making stuff up, you aren't even arguing with anything I have posted anymore.

This is because the reaction was not thermitic but was simple combustion in air that went out.

Can you provide a source for your claim that simple combustion can produce the temperatures required for iron to be melted and form tiny spheres? Because those were produced by the reaction, unless you must resort to calling the authors of the paper outright liars as to what they observed.

Why don't you ask Jones to run the DSC experiments under inert gas?

Because I hate to break this mind-blowing information to you, but oxygen was also present at the WTC.

Irrelevant. Jones was conducting chemical analysis. He needs to run DSC under inert gas to distinguish between simple combustion and something more suspicious.

Irrelevant is right. Reacting under an inert gas would be redundant and irrelevant information given that (1) the reaction produces the iron spheres and (2) there is oxygen at the WTC so that this reaction could occur exactly as it did in the lab. You can ignore this as many times as you want and I will just keep repeating it back to you. You are doing nothing to debunk either of these points because there is nothing to debunk about them; unless you call the authors liars then the reaction produced iron spheres, and unless you are totally beyond all recovery then you already know there was oxygen at the WTC.

Butcher said "How would you propose to prove that the elements that you mention did not come from a human body". The elements, not the chips. Huge difference.

Yes, such a huge difference, that you are still seriously suggesting that the chips were composed of human remains. Even if partially, that is still exactly what you have both now claimed. Evidence please? From either one of you? Thanks.

With this level of misrepresentation, wild speculation, and refusing the burden of proof for supporting the assertion of "thermitic material", you are damaging your case. It would stand better if you were silent.

I would offer you the same advice.

If you don't take that advice then be prepared to answer all the questions I just threw at you, because if you don't I'm going to go back and bring it back up before responding to you again and force you to respond to each point.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If you don't take that advice then be prepared to answer all the questions I just threw at you, because if you don't I'm going to go back and bring it back up before responding to you again and force you to respond to each point.

Well, since you have now decided you aren't supporting 'chips are thermite' assertion. What is the point? You either stand by the Jones paper, or the thread title, "proves red thermatic material", or you do not stand by it. But that is what I am here to dispute, that specific assertion.

So I guess it's thermite (military nano thermate)? Anyone have any other ideas?

So far no one has any other valid hypothesis of what else it could be.